How effective is the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 transmission and infection? A national programme analysis in Monaco, July 2021 to September 2022.

BACKGROUND: We quantified SARS-CoV-2 dynamics in different community settings and the direct and indirect effect of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in Monaco for different variants of concern (VOC). METHODS: Between July 2021 and September 2022, we prospectively investigated 20,443 contacts from 6320 index cases using data from the Monaco COVID-19 Public Health Programme. We calculated secondary attack rates (SARs) in households (n = 13,877), schools (n = 2508) and occupational (n = 6499) settings. We used binomial regression with a complementary log-log link function to measure adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and vaccine effectiveness (aVE) for index cases to infect contacts and contacts to be infected in households. RESULTS: In households, the SAR was 55% (95% CI 54-57) and 50% (48-51) among unvaccinated and vaccinated contacts, respectively. The SAR was 32% (28-36) and 12% (10-13) in workplaces, and 7% (6-9) and 6% (3-10) in schools, among unvaccinated and vaccinated contacts respectively. In household, the aHR was lower in contacts than in index cases (aHR 0.68 [0.55-0.83] and 0.93 [0.74-1.1] for delta; aHR 0.73 [0.66-0.81] and 0.89 [0.80-0.99] for omicron BA.1&2, respectively). Vaccination had no significant effect on either direct or indirect aVE for omicron BA.4&5. The direct aVE in contacts was 32% (17, 45) and 27% (19, 34), and for index cases the indirect aVE was 7% (- 17, 26) and 11% (1, 20) for delta and omicron BA.1&2, respectively. The greatest aVE was in contacts with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a single vaccine dose during the omicron BA.1&2 period (45% [27, 59]), while the lowest were found in contacts with either three vaccine doses (aVE - 24% [- 63, 6]) or one single dose and a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aVE - 36% [- 198, 38]) during the omicron BA.4&5 period. CONCLUSIONS: Protection conferred by the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against transmission and infection was low for delta and omicron BA.1&2, regardless of the number of vaccine doses and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no significant vaccine effect for omicron BA.4&5. Health authorities carrying out vaccination campaigns should bear in mind that the current generation of COVID-19 vaccines may not represent an effective tool in protecting individuals from either transmitting or acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Adherence of French GPs to chronic neuropathic pain clinical guidelines: results of a cross-sectional, randomized, "e" case-vignette survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The French Pain Society published guidelines for neuropathic pain management in 2010. Our aim was to evaluate the compliance of GPs with these guidelines three years later. METHODS: We used "e" case vignette methodology for this non interventional study. A national panel of randomly selected GPs was included. We used eight "e" case-vignettes relating to chronic pain, differing in terms of the type of pain (neuropathic/non neuropathic), etiology (cancer, postoperative pain, low back pain with or without radicular pain, diabetes) and symptoms. GPs received two randomly selected consecutive "e" case vignettes (with/without neuropathic pain). We analyzed their ability to recognize neuropathic pain and to prescribe appropriate first-line treatment. RESULTS: From the 1265 GPs in the database, we recruited 443 (35.0%), 334 of whom logged onto the web site (26.4%) and 319 (25.2%) of whom completed the survey. Among these GPs, 170 (53.3%) were aware of the guidelines, 136 (42.6%) were able to follow them, and 110 (34.5%) used the DN4 diagnostic tool. Sensitivity for neuropathic pain recognition was 87.8% (CI: 84.2%; 91.4%). However, postoperative neuropathic pain was less well diagnosed (77.9%; CI: 69.6%; 86.2%) than diabetic pain (95.2%; CI: 90.0%; 100.0%), cancer pain (90.6%; CI: 83.5%; 97.8%) and typical radicular pain (90.7%; CI: 84.9%; 96.5%). When neuropathic pain was correctly recognized, the likelihood of appropriate first-line treatment prescription was 90.6% (CI: 87.4%; 93.8%). The treatments proposed were pregabaline (71.8%), gabapentine (43.9%), amiptriptylline (23.2%) and duloxetine (18.2%). However, ibuprofen (11%), acetaminophen-codeine (29.5%) and clonazepam (10%) were still prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: The compliance of GPs with clinical practice guidelines appeared to be satisfactory, but differed between etiologies.